Respect for Women

Post Reply New Topic

I think so. And increasingly people are being treated as such.

And yet elected to respond with personal attacks rather than engaging with my post in its context. Care to revise what you consider to be a "disconnect"?



Even if we accept your premise, what do these hypothetical frustrated men have to do with my posts?



No, it hasn't. Various systems of elitist dominance have been in place for thousands of years. The overwhelming majority of men and women over the last few millennia were uneducated peasants whose lives were entirely subject to the whims of the nobility. You're repeating a narrative which is designed to excuse radical gender-based ideas on the basis that men who were born into a modern, equal western society are guilty of the original sin of having the same sex organs as the majority of those aforementioned elites.

As Socrates put it "one must not return injustice when one is wronged".

The social contract is enforced by legislation that, correctly in my opinion, states that men and women are equal under the law. That is the society into which I was born.



The roles are whatever you choose them to be. For example, I thoroughly enjoy being the primary carer for my child - a joint decision which made sense in the context of the unique circumstances of my particular family unit for a whole variety of reasons. It doesn't matter what other people's perceptions are of this arrangement, it only matters what works best for us.

It doesn't matter if we perceive the laws and societal norms of yesteryear as morally inferior to those we cleave to today, we owe our existence to them. We also cannot retroactively apply our subjective modern morality to historical periods without putting them into their full context. A point which is of particular relevance to my response to Yippy which you so discourteously responded to.

I have not personally attacked you. I am challenging you because I think you have a condescending attitude and it won't serve you well. Our disconnect comes from having different goals with the discussion.


Nothing. That was an general comment.


The people alive today are stuck with what those who came before have created. All we can do is modify the system, and this is happening for the better, I think.




That's awesome!


History is written by the living and is affected by the experiences and bias of the writer. And I agree. The documents we have must be put in the context of their times; but is that even possible?

Are you serious?

You're obviously speaking from a perspective of first world comfort, of never having had to fight a war on your own soil. Let me tell you something, artillery strikes don't discriminate. And yet when the enemy is on your doorstep, a swift death from a bullet or bomb would be a mercy for a young woman. I'm sure you understand what it means for a woman to be taken prisoner, right? Countless women in war-torn countries have killed themselves to avoid the consequences of being captured.

So tell me what country are you from? My understanding is that this thread has been about sexism in the first world, particularly in the US. Even so I would say death is the ultimate loss. Say what you want about casualties but no women in the US are forced to sign any legally binding documentation when they hit the age of 18.

That coupled with the systematic oppression of men in court, whereas the most women here have to worry about are some mean words, makes it clear to me that things are not equal whatsoever. Of course feminists won't see it because, going by their own logic, those whom are privileged tend to be blind to it.

Iraq.

So, what is it like to live in Iraq right now? I can't even imagine.

This:



Is a personal attack. As is an accusation of gaslighting.



Far from challenging me, you seem bent on invoking my ire, despite the futility of such an endeavour. Your opinions regarding my attitude are unqualified and unwelcome. I'm not interested in your feelings or in your pseudo-psychological analysis of my own.

If your goal is to establish yourself as an arbiter of appropriate social behaviour, insulting other people and accusing them of psychological abuse based on nothing more than your own inference goes far beyond counter-productive.



You are unaware of my goals regarding anything. Your hypothetical model of who I am, and what my motivations are, is informed purely by your own ignorance. If you're able and willing to understand this rudimentary fact, it might be possible to have something resembling a valuable dialogue. In case there's any confusion, these are not provided as insults.



And your reasons for bringing it to the table? I ask because you just left it out there and didn't seem to follow on from it. If you have solutions, I'd be interested in hearing what you believe the extent of the problem to be.



They're not stuck with anything. We are at liberty to shape the world as we see fit, within the confines of societal consent. There will always be those who believe there is a better way. The onus is on such people to persuade sufficient numbers to agree with them.



I agree, though it's not without its challenges.



Not from an experiential perspective - at least not entirely. There are patterns of thought and behaviour which are intrinsic aspects of our cultural identity and that shape our perceptions. For instance, it would be incredibly difficult for someone born in the 90's to fully imagine a world in which there are no cell phones, no internet and no cable or satellite television, let alone to imagine life as a serf contemplating revolt in 14th century England. And those are just examples of mechanical differences.

Try to imagine a world in which none of the books, television shows, movies and songs that have influenced you exist. Who would you be if you hadn't, for example, read Moby Dick, had never heard a Beatles song or seen The Simpsons or Star Wars? That 14th century serf has no frame of reference for any of these things.

As you said yourself:

Oh, I haven't been in Iraq in years. I moved to the US in 2003.

These questions deserve answers.

My ire is invoked when I see someone being rude to someone else, man or woman.


It occurred to me. That's why I bring anything "to the table." You never know; sometimes people pick up on something and jump in.


They had stories though. Stories have been around since people have. Beginning with oral storytelling and rudimentary rock art, to Sumerian literature and then The Iliad and The Odyssey. I think the themes of the stories have remained similar, but the context changes continually.



I'm glad to hear that you are not living in a war zone. I'm sorry, though, that your homeland is so strife-filled right now.

Thank you. And while it is heartbreaking, I've had many years to accept the fact that Iraq is no longer my home. Even if I did return someday, it wouldn't be the same country I left. Nothing on Earth lasts forever, and some things just can't be replaced.

Which is exactly why I will hate voting this year. I rather get my wisdom teeth pulled, than vote for either candidate .

It's a good year to vote 3rd party, you can go for Gary or Jill with a clear conscience.

I appreciate the sentiment, my dear fellow Washingtonian. However, it is such a bipartisan system, that to vote for a 3rd party is stealing a vote from the less evil candidate, as would not voting at all. But since Hillary is most likely going to win anyway, what does it matter. I literally feel damned if I do, dammed if I don't.

Well, I guess I'll go read up more on Johnson anyway, even though he's not going to win. It is better than voting for a lying sociopathic murderer, or a lying narcissistic pervert.

Take care Dox47.